|
|
|
I visited the Museum of Man in San Diego and the Lucy Legacy exhibit in Seattle. Both featured alleged evidence for evolution in the form of the "missing links" between man and beast. Seattle's Lucy exhibit is losing a ton of money, because the expected crowds have not materialized. It has been such a financial fiasco that other U.S. cities that were planning to host the exhibit are backing out. Lucy's bones will probably return to Ethiopia when the Seattle exhibit ends. The fossilized bones called Lucy consist of a partial skeleton about the size of a chimpanzee that was discovered in 1974 in northern Ethiopia by Donald Johanson and his colleagues. The discovery is said to be "the key piece in evolution's puzzle." They named the fragmentary skeleton "Lucy" after playing the Beatles song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" at the camp rock & roll party the night of the discovery. Evolutionists think that Lucy was a member of proto-humans called Australopithecus that lived about three million years ago. What they did not explain at the Museum of Man or the Lucy Legacy exhibit is that the real evidence that this fossil is "proto-human" is non-existent. The jaw bone is distinctly ape-like with a V-shape as opposed to the human type. In 2007, anthropologists at the Tel Aviv University, said that they have disproven the theory that Lucy is a common ancestor of humans and great apes. "The specific structure found in Lucy also appears in a species called Australopithecus robustus. Prof. Yoel Rak and colleagues at the Sackler School of Medicine's department of anatomy and anthropology wrote, 'The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Australopithecus afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of [Lucy] as a common ancestor.' ... Rak and colleagues studied 146 mature primate bone specimens, including those from modern humans, gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans and found that the "ramus element" of the mandible connecting the lower jaw to the skull is like that of the robust forms, therefore eliminating the possibility that Lucy and her kind are Man's direct ancestors" (Dave Scot, "Icon of Evolution 'Lucy' Bites the Dust," Uncommon Descent, April 26, 2007). The discoverers claim that Lucy "could have" walked upright, but this cannot be proven. It could just as easily have walked on all fours like an ape, while walking upright for short distances. One day in Kathmandu I saw a rhesus macaque monkey walk a long distance on his back legs. Further, evolutionists cannot even prove that the Lucy skeleton is even composed of the bones of the same creature. The bones were found scattered across a hillside over an area covering at least 50 feet. Casey Luskin, who also visited the Lucy Legacy exhibit, writes: "In a video playing at the exhibit, Johansen admitted that when he found Lucy, he 'looked up the slope and there were other bones sticking out.' So this was not a case where the bones were found together forming a contiguous skeleton, but rather they were scattered across a hillside. At one point, Johansen even says that if there had been only one more rainstorm, Lucy's bones might have been washed away, never to be seen again. This does not inspire confidence in the integrity of Lucy's skeleton or its proper reconstruction: If the next rainstorm could wash Lucy away completely, what happened during the prior rainstorms to mix-up 'Lucy' with who-knows-what? How do we know that 'Lucy' doesn't represent bones from multiple individuals or even multiple species? The classic rejoinder to these questions claims that since none of Lucy's bones are duplicated, that this shows she's a single individual. But given the fragmentary nature of many of the bones and the highly incomplete nature of the skeleton, this argument seems fragile. Perhaps many of the bones are from one individual. But can we be sure that all are from one individual? Take Lucy's femur or the pelvis, the most-prized parts of her skeleton. It's a very difficult case to conclusively make that all 'Lucy's' bones are clearly from one individual of one species, and it requires some heavy assumptions" ("My Pilgrimage to Lucy's Holy Relics Fails to Inspire Faith in Darwinism," Evolution News & Views, Discovery Institute, Feb. 1, 2009). Dr. Albert Mehlert, former evolutionist and paleoanthropology researcher, said: "The evidence given above makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pygmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal). The 'evidence' for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing" ("Lucy - Evolution's Solitary Claim for Ape/Man," Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 3, p. 145). Lucy is a hoax, just like the rest of the evolutionary tree. The full-flesh recreations of how Lucy supposedly looked at the Museum of Man and the Lucy Legacy and the St. Louis Zoo and other places depict a creature that walked upright and had the face, hands, and feet of a half-human, half-ape evolutionary monster, but there is no certain evidence for any of this. It is speculation and therefore completely unscientific. There are only bare fragments of the Lucy skull and nothing whatsoever of the creature's hands and feet in existence, and this is the most complete skeleton that they have of this particular "missing link"! Lucy is an apt name. Just as the Beatles' song lends itself to various interpretations, according to the perspective of the hearer, so does the evolutionist's bones. http://www.wayoflife.org |
|
|
|